Two suggestions:Space Travel is impossibleSpace Travel will always be impossible

This means:Everything that has to do with Space Travel until now must be fakedEverything that will ever be done with Space Travel must be faked

First thoughts:In the current model of us all, Space is the area above the atmosphere.Under atmospheric conditions, three main factors play a role:

Temperature - temperature isn't something, it is the registration of something; thermal energyPressure - pressure isn't something, it is the registration of something; mechanical energyGravity - that mysterious force that keeps us on the ground

Under space conditions, only one of those factors play a role in the space that is almost void of the first 2 (that only can function with an internal source):Gravity

Gravity is the defining factor of what Space is, so zero gravity is impossible. Cannot exist. The exact opposite is the case; gravity is everywhere.

What is presented to us as "zero gravity" is a physical-mathematical trick of leveling out -a/a, but those are not the conditions of Space. They are the conditions of a vomit comet.

Temperature - temperature isn't something, it is the registration of something; thermal energyPressure - pressure isn't something, it is the registration of something; mechanical energyGravity - that mysterious force that keeps us on the ground

Numbers are rough, for an idea: try warming up on an unclouded polar ‘night’ with a bright far away Sun.

Mechanical energy sources under no Space conditions are:- the Earth, mainly the atmosphere - resulting in pressure- conversion of thermal energy - every man-made propulsion mechanism known including thermal balloons- us; engineering of other sources

Gravity always just is. The background force that drives us all enslaved to it.

Thermal energy is transferred by three mechanisms:

1 - conduction2 - convection3 - radiation

Conduction takes place because of particles moving (some call them atoms and molecules and all) transferring the heat energy and giving as result temperature, mostly in solids.

Convection also is based on moving particles but then in gases, liquids and plastic materials. Needs a pressurized medium to function.

Batteries use a combination of convection and conduction to work.

Radiation is transferred and does not need pressure to work; light, electromagnetical and radiated thermal energy do not stop. A remote control or communication tower uses radiation to process energy to another place.

Space doesn’t have any pressure, hardly, with estimated values, on mostly proper science, as we cannot get there as very very low.

This means 2 cannot exist and 3 gets much more important

1 exists in materials in that space (the Moon, Mercury, meteors), but not in Space itself

That leaves the only heat energy mechanism in empty Space: radiation

And of course the old master around: gravity

Both of these depend on: the Sun

Some propose an electrical or magnetical universe, but if we cannot go into Space we cannot gather data and telescopes are limited and always Earth-bound, so it's useless to speculate about this idea. It may or may not be true, it doesn't matter.

Others propose an aether, that works just as gravity, but then rewritten and rearranged a bit, it may or may not be true, it doesn't matter.

This topic holds the flawed mainstream science against the faked Space Travels.

---

This is the first idea I would like you to think about, as this defines your understanding of the later steps in my thinking. Probably considering this point, letting it mature for a while, visiting nature far away from all the other hoaxes, you'll see already why and how this makes the whole Space Travel theater crumble apart.

Banned readers as Anders, daddie_o and VexMan will certainly profit from it. And pass it on to Miles.

"That is all nice and true, but we have 33911 (((satellites))) in Space that function on a combination of conversion of thermal energy via conduction and convection, magically without pressure environment turning thermal energy into mechanical energy by burning fuels. And turning solar radiation thermal energy into mechanical energy, using batteries, so convection and conduction. On top of that, we can beat gravity by designing a path through Space on this very Godlike computer here, so your idea is bullshit"

Thank you for bringing up that point to me, dear NASA, don't go too fast now. Your (((satellites))) will be treated. You are already busted, but let me show to you by how much, ok? Have a nice day.

PS: Could you explain me why Buzz, Neil and all his other amigos in those suits never climbed Mount Everest, dear NASA? Wouldn't it make sense that you first train a bit with not even space-like conditions and almost 9 km? Sort of only after that making the next leap to 399,666?

Like the Wright Bros. didn't do their first flight to Australia, let's say?

Florida is more comfortable, I understand.

Ah, and why do you keep fooling with 2D lies like this, while the reality is more like this, according to astronomical sciences:

If you don't mind, please explain what you mean and always give context for people to understand, assuming they don't know your own social media connections, etc.

For example, through what media did you receive a "NASA" message?

I like the convention of isolating fictional or contentious concepts such as (((satellites))) or (((nuclear))) power, but I want to understand your syntax and I think average readers would appreciate that explanation, too. You don't have to act enigmatic here, where we try to establish and promote critical thinking that anyone can understand.

Moving on to the topic at hand, I agree that space travel might forever be impossible using purely physical terrestrial technology such as we see in air flight and so on. That enough has been established as a reasonable induction from the bogus science of NASA.

Another speculation I muse on, though I am not sure if it's fitting for much more than our Living Room, is that material and physics will "defocus" as you attempt to leave a system, and reorganize around local physics at another planetary body. While our planetary bodies (e.g.; the Sun, Moon, Mars, rocky debris/meteors ...) remain magnetically connected in a single system, we have the naive assumption that the local experience of time and physics always focuses in the exact same manner in which we see and measure them (and only ever have) strictly from a terrestrial perspective. Why not assume this for now if it doesn't make a difference we would even recognize (I mean between all conventional theories assuming all planets are basically physical in the sense we know vs. ideas that planets are stranger than that)?

We can only see things from a terrestrial perspective and that is why we have always looked at the cosmos and compared the objects to non-celestial (non-exclusive) things. Hence, early beliefs (before human flight) about breathable air and/or atmosphere potentially extending into infinity. Now, we have at least noticed with flight that atmosphere changes and diminishes with distance from Earth's surface, but that still leaves us with the idea that "space" is merely the absence of atmosphere rather than a critical absence of the specific conjunction of all known and mysterious forces shaping the planet we live on.

Naturally, it is alright to presume a universal ether or something else through which everything exists (and we have seen experiments attempting to prove or accidentally proving such an ether/medium) or to look at the merits of electric universe theories (their adhesion to unquestioned NASA data notwithstanding). Or other questions, such as those of gravity and so on.

However, personally, and as a moderator, I am leaning more and more towards nonhocapito's suggestion that CluesForum is not the place for deep scientific studies with our dearth of "experts" — even those on opposite sides that moderators would be helpless to facilitate debates on. I would feel differently if it seemed as though our membership (and our own admins, myself included) were less lazy about formulating useful maps. So far, only Simon (and a former member behind the site Wild Heretic, who has allied himself strongly with Koreshian theory) has employed himself with such a task and until Simon's system is revealed we may want to distance ourselves from related subjects on this site.

If you do have further contributions to the idea that space travel is faulty besides the numerous points we have raised, please do make it very clear and cogent. Thank you!

hoi.polloi » December 3rd, 2016, 5:45 pm wrote:If you don't mind, please explain what you mean and always give context for people to understand, assuming they don't know your own social media connections, etc.

For example, through what media did you receive a "NASA" message

Hoi.polloi, I apologize if my sarcasm wasn't thick enough. I am not in contact with any NASA faker.

I like the convention of isolating fictional or contentious concepts such as (((satellites))) or (((nuclear))) power, but I want to understand your syntax and I think average readers would appreciate that explanation, too. You don't have to act enigmatic here, where we try to establish and promote critical thinking that anyone can understand.

Something I saw online and like it for the same reason: differentiating the lies and liars from other words, where ""doesn't read well with quotes.

Moving on to the topic at hand, I agree that space travel might forever be impossible using purely physical terrestrial technology such as we see in air flight and so on. That enough has been established as a reasonable induction from the bogus science of NASA.

Another speculation I muse on, though I am not sure if it's fitting for much more than our Living Room, is that material and physics will "defocus" as you attempt to leave a system, and reorganize around local physics at another planetary body. While our planetary bodies (e.g.; the Sun, Moon, Mars, rocky debris/meteors ...) remain magnetically connected in a single system, we have the naive assumption that the local experience of time and physics always focuses in the exact same manner in which we see and measure them (and only ever have) strictly from a terrestrial perspective. Why not assume this for now if it doesn't make a difference we would even recognize (I mean between all conventional theories assuming all planets are basically physical in the sense we know vs. ideas that planets are stranger than that)?

We can only see things from a terrestrial perspective and that is why we have always looked at the cosmos and compared the objects to non-celestial (non-exclusive) things. Hence, early beliefs (before human flight) about breathable air and/or atmosphere potentially extending into infinity. Now, we have at least noticed with flight that atmosphere changes and diminishes with distance from Earth's surface, but that still leaves us with the idea that "space" is merely the absence of atmosphere rather than a critical absence of the specific conjunction of all known and mysterious forces shaping the planet we live on.

Naturally, it is alright to presume a universal ether or something else through which everything exists (and we have seen experiments attempting to prove or accidentally proving such an ether/medium) or to look at the merits of electric universe theories (their adhesion to unquestioned NASA data notwithstanding). Or other questions, such as those of gravity and so on.

However, personally, and as a moderator, I am leaning more and more towards nonhocapito's suggestion that CluesForum is not the place for deep scientific studies with our dearth of "experts" — even those on opposite sides that moderators would be helpless to facilitate debates on. I would feel differently if it seemed as though our membership (and our own admins, myself included) were less lazy about formulating useful maps. So far, only Simon (and a former member behind the site Wild Heretic, who has allied himself strongly with Koreshian theory) has employed himself with such a task and until Simon's system is revealed we may want to distance ourselves from related subjects on this site.

If you do have further contributions to the idea that space travel is faulty besides the numerous points we have raised, please do make it very clear and cogent. Thank you!

I understood there was interest (aa5) for the topic and "deep science studies" are not necessary to understand this.

How many people in real life have you convinced of the fake Space Travel, including (((satellites)))? And how long does it take you before they got it?

If my step by step reasoning is unwanted here -can you judge that from 1 post?-, then I will take my bags and will not bother you anymore with the subject, necessary in this Parenting Simulation Age, I think.

I don't keep track, like a tally of who I'm convincing as if I'm making statistics, but people who do get it get it very quickly. You just have to explain to folks the contradictions in the idea of some "space pod" resisting all the incredible stresses said to be cured by magical secret technology:

- the heat exerted on the "space craft"- the inability to shed heat- the pressures of the theoretical infinite vacuum- radiation- official data vs. the official "cure" against that data

Most people who are open to the idea don't have to be painstakingly convinced. Nor do they feel the need to deeply understand the mechanics of how special effects fake the shuttle launches. They have seen enough special effects.

I recommend talking to younger children about this subject. They are sharp. It's the young adults or insecure teens who are most living in a fantasy world because of their passionate desire to be taken seriously or to be seen as "adult" or "relevant" before they actually are. But I suppose there are also those teens who are disillusioned and idealistic, who can see we can do a lot to improve the world and they may be waking up from childhood fantasy as well. Also, while adults are entrenched in their ways and their illusions, it really really just depends on the person.

You don't have to pack your bags; I am just asking you to keep in mind our standards for simple explanations and clear delineation between fake and real; between speculation and research. Thanks for explaining that the NASA message was a fiction you invented. I appreciate that.

I don't keep track, like a tally of who I'm convincing as if I'm making statistics, but people who do get it get it very quickly. You just have to explain to folks the contradictions in the idea of some "space pod" resisting all the incredible stresses said to be cured by magical secret technology:

- the heat exerted on the "space craft"- the inability to shed heat- the pressures of the theoretical infinite vacuum- radiation- official data vs. the official "cure" against that data

Most people who are open to the idea don't have to be painstakingly convinced.

Thank you for sharing your social environment's experiences. It is great to have that, but I fear most of us are bound in a world where 95 % merely grins to outright calls us crazy, when we talk about this existential question, as you say; since the beginning of time.

Nor do they feel the need to deeply understand the mechanics of how special effects fake the shuttle launches. They have seen enough special effects.

That is great. I don't have the luxury to show my social environment some vids and then say fake. People believe in this (((science))) fiction. And they are convinced they are not manipulated.

I recommend talking to younger children about this subject. They are sharp. It's the young adults or insecure teens who are most living in a fantasy world because of their passionate desire to be taken seriously or to be seen as "adult" or "relevant" before they actually are. But I suppose there are also those teens who are disillusioned and idealistic, who can see we can do a lot to improve the world and they may be waking up from childhood fantasy as well. Also, while adults are entrenched in their ways and their illusions, it really really just depends on the person.

Absolutely, what I am doing and will expand soon. Children, age 8-12 is ideal.

You don't have to pack your bags; I am just asking you to keep in mind our standards for simple explanations and clear delineation between fake and real; between speculation and research. Thanks for explaining that the NASA message was a fiction you invented. I appreciate that.

Thank you. I will try to point that out better if it's unclear. I would like to use this NASA chat as a way to show people how to deal with questions people of good intentions, so no, not a real NASA (((expert))), but too deep of an indoctrination just ask.

For what I know, I have a different view of the skies than the other people here, being close to the equator. Traveling, other skies become visible and sharpening your thoughts with unexpected people (a PhD astrophysicist in the US may be common, here it isn't) make a lot clear of what is needed to get the word out.

Starting from the base, I think works best because you can show better where the fakery is easiest to tackle and show other people.

If I want to buy a car from a (((dealer))) who sells me a car that went 5000 times faster than the fastest on the market and the dealer shows me photos and videos of 6x this car doing it 47 years ago, but he couldn't give a demonstration of the car working now, I don't buy it.

And not because I am going to analyze the photo fakery and video creation, but because I reason step by step this is impossible.

The photo and video fakery show us what they fake, but not the how and why.

I try to focus initially on the last two, where more common Cluesforum photo analysis is planned for later and also by others, please.

It is a huge topic, so want to structure it well. If you like the set-up and ideas of the first two posts I will continue with that. Later posts have more source links and images to back up the points. But the content is quite clear?

An interesting thing is all over the internet, 'real science' debate and discussion gets shut down fast. With many forums that seem to allow and even promote scientific discussion stopping/deleting actual scientific debate if it questions any mainstream accepted theories. I suspect most of those forums are controlled by people who are trying to stifle real scientific discussion.

I like how you are listing all of the possibilities at each step, and then eliminating ones that cannot be, Vera. I noticed in reading the papers of great scientists of centuries past, that is what they do. And its amazing, like at the start I imagined thousands of possibilities, so how is this scientist going to get anywhere with so little information. Yet it will turn out there is only 8 possibilities, and 6 cannot be logically, so it must be one of the remaining 2, which directs thought.

My own view is that gravity is some sort of electro-magnetic effect. A strange possibility is that gravity is a surface phenomenon on a sphere, and actually it is full on electro-magnetism that controls the orbits of the planets - with no gravitation involved.

For Newton, he said in his paper that he makes no claim to say what is causing gravity, or how it is transmitting between bodies. What Newton did say is that he made the monumental discovery of the inverse square law. Which is also how the surface area of a sphere grows as the radius grows. --that would be the problem with the radiation force you mentioned is that it would lose its power quickly as the radius grew.

In a letter to a friend, Newton said he found the idea of gravity transmitting through 'nothingness' an idea no experienced philosopher could take seriously.

But lets go with your hypothetical that gravity is like a property of space that cannot have like anti-gravity or be deflected, etc. Then we would have to agree that space travel is currently impossible and very unlikely in the future either. Possibly some sort of straight line like the way light moves, transmitting power to the ship.

Or at least we would have to say that space ships flying around the way airplanes do is very unlikely. And it would take some sort of wild technology like portals or beam down to the planet like on star trek.

Please do not accuse our forum of undue censorship when we are moderating. I am invested in the notions of free speech. However, please admit there are plenty of places on the Internet you can establish your own discussion based on research done here if you decide you want to pursue it past the point we have established a censorship border.

We censor "out there" topics not because they aren't interesting but because we are most effective when we dedicate ourselves to things we can all discuss. That is what I mean when I agree with nonhocapito. I mean we must admit the limits of our knowledge and sometimes "out there" discussions about science get very emotional and even arrogant about what we claim to know that others do not.

We want everyone to understand things simply. I think we are doing an okay job in this thread so far. Just a concern, that is all.

My own view is that gravity is some sort of electro-magnetic effect. A strange possibility is that gravity is a surface phenomenon on a sphere, and actually it is full on electro-magnetism that controls the orbits of the planets - with no gravitation involved.

That is a very cogent and logical view. And it's worth experiments to back it up.

I am not sure how to approach that.

Related to the important idea that the planets are magnetically "locked" to an electromagnetic pattern of some very large kind and this is also something that helps explain their motions, but also tangential, is this subject:

Fortunately, there is at least one experiment which shows electromagnetic changes related to gravity. Many of them are about balloons, and that itself is an interesting start to the discussion (though I feel very much not the end). Some cause dense things to "float" and apparently not due to traditional conductivity of conventional magnetism.

Get enchanted by a aluminium foil ship floating above ground on sulphur hexafluoride (gas significantly denser than air) at the Physikshow of the University of Bonn!http://www.physikshow.uni-bonn.de/

(Though I don't believe buoyancy is a purely good answer, since then we are not talking of default electromagnetism of substances changed on a deeper level.)

This one due to electro-magnetism:

This experiment was done to create a lifter based on the Biefeld-Brown effect.BackgroundBiefeld- Brown effect

Dr Alfred Biefeld (1867 - 1943) discovered "antigravity" in the 1920s by experimenting with high voltage capacitors. His student, Mr.Townsend Brown, did further research on this subject. The result of their combined work is called the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Although the actual explanation is a little more complicated, simply put, their work suggests that when two poles are separated by a dielectric, with one pole having a positive charge and the other with a negative charge, and the voltage between them is more than 30 kilovolts, there will be a tendency towards the positive pole. Hence, if the system is placed with the positive pole on the top and the negative pole at the bottom, and the appropriate voltage (> 30kV) is applied, the system will start to "float".

And yes, anyone can pretty much do this. But some suggest it does not work in vacuum. At this point, I feel we would want to do much better research into explanations, and we should always caution ourselves away from any YouTuber "UFO" type discussions and focus strictly on experiments, data collection and reasonable speculation.

I think it's okay to make your "conclusions" as a form of speculation, but we should be careful of hard line positions, such as "[X] is absolutely unequivocally true" because — after all — science doesn't work like that. It is a superior philosophy to say, "It's reasonable to assume due to [ABC] experiments we can all perform and understand valuable information from that we haven't found cases yet where [X] is untrue."

---

I hope aa5 is satisfied by this little tangent, because I am going to lock the thread. We don't need to waste our time trying to prove an (infinite) negative. Nor do we need to develop a theory. That's for researchers to do if they find our research useful to them.

Now, we already have a handful of very important and lengthy posts about satellites, rocketry, the "space stations" and other things that should give the thinking person pause.

If we need a summary of our most relevant points, we could certainly construct it, but I am not sure hyperbole about "Space travel under all circumstances is forever impossible" is the right way to approach the subject scientifically.